BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building Scranton Pennsylvania landscaping construction Scranton Pennsylvania tract home Scranton Pennsylvania Subterranean parking Scranton Pennsylvania condominiums Scranton Pennsylvania Medical building Scranton Pennsylvania low-income housing Scranton Pennsylvania high-rise construction Scranton Pennsylvania production housing Scranton Pennsylvania multi family housing Scranton Pennsylvania institutional building Scranton Pennsylvania structural steel construction Scranton Pennsylvania hospital construction Scranton Pennsylvania parking structure Scranton Pennsylvania mid-rise construction Scranton Pennsylvania townhome construction Scranton Pennsylvania retail construction Scranton Pennsylvania industrial building Scranton Pennsylvania condominium Scranton Pennsylvania casino resort Scranton Pennsylvania housing Scranton Pennsylvania custom home Scranton Pennsylvania
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Scranton, Pennsylvania

    Pennsylvania Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: HB 1875 stipulates that “no later than 90 days before filing an action, serve written notice of claim on the contractor. Upon receipt of notice, builder has 15 days to forward the claim to any subcontractor/supplier and 30 days after service of notice to offer to compromise and settle the claim by monetary payment without inspection, propose to inspect the dwelling that is the subject of the claim; or reject the claim. Contractor has 14 days after inspection to provide written notice of intention.”


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Scranton Pennsylvania

    No state license required. For public works projects, see General Services website.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Lackawanna Home Builders Association
    Local # 3902
    116 N. Washington Ave.
    Scranton, PA 18503
    http://www.lackawannahba.com

    Wayne County Builders Assoc
    Local # 3965
    PO Box 378
    Hawley, PA 18428
    http://www.waynecountybuilders.com

    Tri-County Builders Association
    Local # 3962
    5183 Georgetown Rd
    Franklin, PA 16323


    Pike County Builders Association
    Local # 3953
    209 E Harford St
    Milford, PA 18337
    http://www.pikecountybuilders.com

    Mercer Co Builders Association
    Local # 3942
    PO Box 488
    Fredonia, PA 16124


    Building Industry Association of Northeastern PA
    Local # 3932
    411 Main St
    Kingston, PA 18704
    http://www.bianepa.com

    West Branch-Susquehanna Builders Association
    Local # 3968
    1610 Whitman Street
    Williamsport, PA 17701
    http://www.westbranchbuilders.org


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Scranton Pennsylvania

    Does the New Jersey Right-To-Repair Law Omit Too Many Construction Defects?

    Florida trigger

    Washington Court of Appeals Upholds Standard of Repose in Fruit Warehouse Case

    Denver Court Rules that Condo Owners Must Follow Arbitration Agreement

    Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing

    Judge Kobayashi Determines No Coverage for Construction Defect Claim

    Massachusetts Couple Seek to Recuse Judge in Construction Defect Case

    Builder to Appeal Razing of Harmon Tower

    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

    Crane Dangles and So Do Insurance Questions

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    Michigan Supreme Court Concludes No Statute of Repose on Breach of Contract

    Another Colorado District Court Refuses to Apply HB 10-1394 Retroactively

    Avoid Gaps in Construction Defect Coverage

    South Carolina Legislature Redefining Occurrences to Include Construction Defects in CGL Policies

    Court Requires Adherence to “Good Faith and Fair Dealing” in Construction Defect Coverage

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    Park District Sues over Leaky Roof

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    The King of Construction Defect Scams

    General Contractors Must Plan to Limit Liability for Subcontractor Injury

    Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed

    No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    Insurance Firm Under No Duty to Defend in Hawaii Construction Defect Case

    Construction Suit Ends with Just an Apology

    Court Rules on a Long List of Motions in Illinois National Insurance Co v Nordic PCL

    2011 Worst Year Ever for Home Sales

    Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case

    Homeowner Loses Suit against Architect and Contractor of Resold Home

    There is No Non-Delegable Duty on the Part of Residential Builders in Colorado

    Insurance Firm Defends against $22 Million Claim

    Florida County Suspends Impact Fees to Spur Development

    Nebraska Man Sentenced for Insurance Fraud in Construction Projects

    Congress Addresses Homebuilding Credit Crunch

    Fifth Circuit Asks Texas Supreme Court to Clarify Construction Defect Decision

    Texas res judicata and co-insurer defense costs contribution

    Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms Eight-Year Limit on Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Colorado “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

    One to Watch: Case Takes on Economic Loss Rule and Professional Duties

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

    Hospital Construction Firm Settles Defect Claim for $1.1 Million

    Restitution Unlikely in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam

    Recent Case Brings Clarity and Questions to Statute of Repose Application

    Homeowners Sue Over Sinkholes, Use Cash for Other Things

    Construction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules

    Homeowner’s Policy Excludes Coverage for Loss Caused by Chinese Drywall

    A Downside of Associational Standing - HOA's Claims Against Subcontractors Barred by Statute of Limitations

    Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

    South Carolina Legislature Defines "Occurrence" To Include Property Damage Arising From Faulty Workmanship

    Houses Can Still Make Cents: Illinois’ Implied Warranty of Habitability

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Contractor Burns Down Home, Insurer Refuses Coverage

    Insurer Not Liable for Construction Defect Revealed by Woodpecker

    Court finds subcontractor responsible for defending claim

    Florida “get to” costs do not constitute damages because of “property damage”

    Connecticut Gets Medieval All Over Construction Defects

    Washington Supreme Court Sides with Lien Claimants in Williams v. Athletic Field

    Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders

    Construction Firm Charged for Creating “Hail” Damage

    AFL-CIO Joins in $10 Billion Infrastructure Plan

    Nevada Construction Defect Lawyers Dead in Possible Suicides

    MGM Seeks to Demolish Harmon Towers

    Micropiles for bad soil: a Tarheel victory

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Can Negligent Contractors Shift Blame in South Carolina?

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    Southern California Lost $8 Billion in Construction Wages

    Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

    California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases

    LEED Certified Courthouse Square Negotiating With Insurers, Mulling Over Demolition

    Failure to Meet Code Case Remanded to Lower Court for Attorney Fees

    Cabinetmaker Exceeds Expectations as Conditions Improve

    Texas contractual liability exclusion

    Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It

    SB800 Cases Approach the Courts

    Pipes May Be Defective, But Owners Lack Standing

    Lower Court “Eminently Reasonable” but Wrong in Construction Defect Case

    Ohio Adopts Energy-Efficient Building Code

    Anti-Assignment Provision Unenforceable in Kentucky

    All Risk Policy Only Covers Repair to Portion of Dock That Sustains Damage

    State Farm Too Quick To Deny Coverage, Court Rules

    Florida Property Bill Passes Economic Affairs Committee with Amendments

    Construction Workers Unearth Bones

    Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

    Architect Not Liable for Balcony’s Collapse

    Construction Defects and Contractor-Owners

    David McLain to Speak at the CDLA 2012 Annual Conference

    Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case Cannot Be Overturned While Facts Are Still in Contention in Related Cases

    Virginia Homebuilding Slumps After Last Year’s Gain
    Corporate Profile

    SCRANTON PENNSYLVANIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Scranton, Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 5,500 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Scranton's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Scranton Pennsylvania forensic architect fenestration expert witnessScranton Pennsylvania forensic architect contractor expert witnessScranton Pennsylvania forensic architect construction forensic expert witnessScranton Pennsylvania forensic architect civil engineer expert witnessScranton Pennsylvania forensic architect expert witness concrete failureScranton Pennsylvania forensic architect concrete expert witnessScranton Pennsylvania forensic architect construction expert witness consultant
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Scranton, Pennsylvania

    Ensuing Loss Found Ambiguous, Allowing Coverage

    August 16, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The court determined the ensuing loss provision was ambiguous and found coverage for the home owners in Platek v. Town of Hamburg, 2012 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5371 (N.Y. App. Div. July 6, 2012).

    The burst of a water main caused water damage to the insureds' basement. Allstate disclaimed coverage under exclusion 4 for losses caused by "[w]ater . . . on or below the surface of the ground, regardless of its source . . . [,] includ[ing] water . . . which exerts pressure on or flows, seeps or leaks through any part of the residence premises."

    Another policy provision covered "sudden and accidental direct physical loss caused by fire, explosion or theft resulting from item []. . . 4 . . . ." Plaintiffs argued that this exception applied because their claimed loss was caused by an "explosion" of the water main.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com


    Going Green for Lower Permit Fees

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Clay County, Kansas is offering rebates on building permits for green homes. According to the Kansas City Star, building permits in the county are typically $2,500. The county will rebate anything from half to all of the permit fee, depending on how well the builder meets green standards. The county will monitor and inspect the process to make certain that builders adhere to their promises for green construction. The county hopes this will encourage green building by offsetting the cost.

    Read the full story…


    Lower Court “Eminently Reasonable” but Wrong in Construction Defect Case

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Noting that “circuit court’s orders are eminently reasonable, logical and just” the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has granted a writ to halt enforcement of these orders and to compel arbitration instead in the case of State v. Tucker. The initial case concerned claims that an HVAC system had been improperly designed, constructed, manufactured, or maintained, leading to serious problems. Glenmark Holding, the owner of the Suncrest Executive Plaza brought a lawsuit against seven defendants. Three of the defendants, Morgan Keller, Inc, York International Corporation, and Johnson Controls, Inc. argued that Glenmark was obligated to enter into arbitration.

    Glenmark and the other defendants argued that the motions for arbitration should be denied “so all the claims and cross-claims of the parties could be litigated in one forum, in one proceeding.” The circuit court noted that arbitration is preferred over litigation because of its supposed “expeditious, economic resolution of issues,” but that in this case, “the petitioners would expend additional, not fewer resources responding to the parties’ claims and cross-claims.” As “compulsory arbitration would be insufficient and inequitable” the court denied the request, finding the arbitration clauses “unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable.”

    Morgan Keller, York, and Johson argued that “the interpretation of arbitration clauses is governed exclusively by the Federal Arbitration Act.” The appeals court found that “the circuit court was within its authority to consider Glenmark’s claim that the arbitration clauses were unenforceable.” However, the appeals court rejected the circuit court’s conclusion about the “piecemeal” resolution of the conflict, as it contradicts a Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court stated in 1983 that the FAA “requires piecemeal resolution when necessary to give effect to an arbitration agreement.” In a 1985 decision, the Court held that a court could “not substitute [its] own views of economy and efficiency.”

    Nor could the court find the arbitration clause to be unconscionable or unenforceable. The court noted that the contract was a standard AIA form, and was amended by the parties involved, whom the court characterized as “commercially sophisticated.” The court found that the agreement limited the rights of all parties and was not one-sided.

    As the arbitration clause was neither unconscionable nor unenforceable, and Supreme Court rulings preclude a court from substituting its own procedures, even when these are “eminently reasonable, logical and just,” the appeals court halted the order of the circuit court, sending the matter to arbitration.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Vegas Hi-Rise Not Earthquake Safe

    July 12, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    If an earthquake hit Las Vegas, the Harmon Tower would not withstand it. A report from Weidlinger Associates told MGM Resorts that “in a code-level earthquake, using either the permitted or current code specified loads, it is likely that critical structural members in the tower will fail and become incapable of supporting gravity loads, leading to a partial or complete collapse of the tower.” The inspection came at the request of county officials, according to the article in Forbes.

    According to Ronald Lynn, directory of the building division in the county’s development services division, “these deficiencies, in their current state, make the building uninhabitable.” The county is concerned about risks to adjacent buildings.

    MGM Resorts is currently in litigation, separate from the stability issues, with Perini Corp., the builders of Harmon Tower.

    Read the full story…


    Irene May Benefit Construction Industry

    September 1, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Noting that while it wasn’t the $15 billion disaster some predicted, Hurricane Irene still caused quite a bit of damage on its path up the Eastern Seaboard. Martha White, reporting for MSNBC cites Kinetc Analysis Corp. with an estimate of $7 billion in damage. Carl Van Horn, a professor of public policy at Rutgers University expected an initial decline in construction jobs, due to projects delayed due to the storm’s arrival, but he said, “a few weeks later, employment picks up as people rebuild.”

    Kinetic says that one unknown is how much of the damage is insured. They expect only $3 billion of damage will be covered by insurance. This would likely put a drag on consumer spending, as homeowners would have to dig into their own pockets to pay for repairs, according to Karl Smith, associate professor of economics and government at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

    Read the full story…


    Housing Market on Way to Recovery

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Bloomberg News reports that new home purchases neared a two-year high, with July sales being the strongest since April 2010. Economists polled by Bloomberg expected an annual pace of 380,000 sales, the current levels are at 373,000. Strongest sales gains were in the Northeast, with a 20 percent jump. The Midwest and Western regions had small gains, and the South saw a drop of 4.9 percent. As the Northeast’s home prices are highest and the South’s the lowest, the pattern of sales lead to a sharp increase in median sales price.

    Meanwhile, existing stocks of homes continued to deplete, reaching a record low of 38,000 completed homes on the market. In response, builders are constructing new homes at a pace not seen since April 2010, accord to the Commerce Department.

    Read the full story…


    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims

    February 10, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The insurer unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment, contending it had no obligation to defend two related underlying construction defect cases. Amerisure Ins. Co. v. R.L.Lantana Boatyard, Ltd., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2466 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2012).

    An engineering report noted design construction defects and deficiencies in visible, physical improvements at The Moorings at Lantana Condominium. In two lawsuits, The Moorings sued the developer, R.L. Lantana Boatyard ("RLLB"), and the contractor, Current Builders of Florida.

    Current Builders was insured by Amerisure. RLLB was named as an additional insured under the Amerisure policy.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com


    Public Relations Battle over Harmon Tower

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Tutor Pernini claims that CityCenter is portraying the construction firm as “the scum of the earth” in an attempt to influence eventual jurors, according to an article at Vegas Inc. The contractor’s attorneys have requested information regarding the public relations efforts of MGM Resorts and CityCenter, characterizing CityCenter’s PR as a “litigation spin doctor.”

    CityCenter has requested that at least one subpoena be canceled. Judge Elizabeth Gonzales has already allowed one to go through, although she has noted that Perini cannot request documents from CityCenter’s lawyers to the litigation consultants under attorney/client privilege. Tutor Perini claims that in 2010, Patricia Glaser, who has represented CityCenter, said her goal was to portray Perini as “the scum of the earth,” and make that certain that judges and juries would not “adopt the world view espoused by the opposing party.”

    Read the full story…


    Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A Virginia court sent charges of construction fraud against a Kansas man to a grand jury. Larry Foster visited homes in Bedford County, Virginia, tested the water, and told homeowners that they needed new water filtration systems. The homeowners paid, but Mr. Foster never delivered. One homeowner who testified paid him $1,690. Another paid even more, giving $3,090 to Mr. Foster. In order to dupe his victims, Foster used the address of a chiropractor as a business address, unbeknownst to the actual business there.. He is wanted for charges in other states as well.

    Read the full story…


    Lien Claimant’s Right to Execute against Bond Upheld in Court of Appeals

    February 10, 2012 — Douglas Rieser, Builders Counsel

    Stonewood v. Infinity Homes is a simple construction dispute over a matter of about $9,000.00. But sometimes these tiny little disputes turn into expensive legal battles over mere procedural quivering. In Stonewood, a small subcontractor won a big victory yesterday when the Divison 1 Court of Appeals upheld its judgment against a lien release bond posted by an owner.

    Infinity Homes contracted with Stonewood Design to lay tile in one of its customer’s homes. Stonewood did the work, but Infinity withheld roughly $9,000.00 of the contract sums for what it alleged were trade damages left on the tile. The two parties were unable to come to an agreement over payment and Stonewood proceeded with a lien under RCW 60.04. It then filed an action to enforce the lien against the homeowner, Infinity and its bonding company.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com


    After Katrina Came Homes that Could Withstand Isaac

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana adopted its first uniform building code. Under the new standards, homes are better able to withstand the winds generated by hurricanes. The owner of one home said that during Hurricane Isaac, “there’s no shaking of the building itself, there’s no sign of a storm except for the rain.”

    WWWLTV reports that the new standards require home to be able to withstand 130 mile per hour winds. They also must follow FEMA guidelines for elevation. Build Now, a non-profit organization, is seeking to build green homes that meet the new standards. Their executive director said “we’re building higher. We’re building stronger. We’re building greener.”

    Read the full story…


    Ninety-Day Extension Denied to KB Home in Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A magistrate judge has denied a request by KB Home Nevada to extend the time for service an additional ninety days. KB claims that St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company has failed to defend them in a construction defect claim. However, the judge did grant KB an additional twenty days to effectuate service, noting that the request for additional time may be renewed.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Construction Defect Not a RICO Case, Says Court

    August 4, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The US District Court of North Carolina has rejected an attempt by a homeowner to restart her construction defect claim by turning it into a RICO lawsuit. Linda Sharp, the plaintiff in the case of Sharp v. Town of Kitty Hawk, attempted to amend a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and argued that her case belonged in the federal courts.

    Ms. Sharp sued in November, 2010 claiming construction defects. She sued in federal court, although the court noted that as she and most of the defendants are citizens of North Carolina, the state court would have been the appropriate jurisdiction. Further, the court noted that one federal claim Sharp made was dismissed with prejudice, leaving only the state law claims. These the court dismissed without prejudice, declining to exercise jurisdiction over North Carolina law.

    After the dismissal, Ms. Sharp attempted to amend her complaint after the deadline. To do so, according to the court, she would be required to obtain consent from defendants or leave of the court. She did neither.

    In his opinion, Judge W. Earl Britt rejected her motion for leave to amend. He also granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The clerk was directed to close the case.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Florida Chinese drywall, pollution exclusion, “your work” exclusion, and “sistership” exclusion.

    May 26, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

    In Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. American Building Materials, Inc., No. 8:10-CV-313-T-24-AEP (M.D. Fla. May 17, 2011), insured drywall supplier ABM was sued by general contractor KB Homes seeking damages because property damage to houses built by KB Homes using defective Chinese drywall supplied by ABM. ABM’s CGL insurer Auto-Owners defended ABM under a reservation of rights and filed suit against ABM and KB Homes seeking a judicial declaration of no to duty to defend or indemnify ABM against the KB Homes lawsuit. On cross motions for summary, the federal district trial court directed entry of judgment in favor of ABM and KB Homes and against Auto-Owners, holding that Auto-Owners had a duty to defend and indemnify ABM against the KB Homes lawsuit.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    Demand for Urban Living Leads to Austin Building Boom

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The New York Times reports that Austin is undergoing a building boom as a high-tech firms, including Facebook and Google, have moved into the downtown area. With them, comes a need for more apartment buildings and more retail space. Mike Kennedy, the president and chief executive of an Austin real estate firm, told the Times “the office space was here, the housing came, and retail is arriving last to the scene.” Currently, two large projects that will add about 500 apartment units is underway, including a 222-unit, 18-story building, and another that will contain 277 units. Apartment occupancy in Austin is at ninety-seven percent.

    Developers also have hotels and more office space planned. The area has about 6,000 hotel rooms with an additional 2,000 planned, but events in Austin can bring in more people than the city’s 30,000 hotel rooms can accommodate. Office space is eighty-eight percent occupied, and a lack of office space could cause firms to look elsewhere.

    Read the full story…


    Texas contractual liability exclusion

    May 18, 2011 — May 18, 2011 - CDCoverage.com

    In Ewing Construction Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., No. C-10-256 (S.D. Tex. April 28, 2011), insured Ewing was the general contractor for an athletic facility constructed for a school district. The school district sued Ewing alleging defective construction of the project. The underlying complaint included contract and negligence causes of action, and sought damages for the repair of the damages and loss of the use of the project. The complaint did not allege damage to any property other than the project itself. Ewing tendered its defense to its CGL insurer Amerisure. Amerisure denied a defense and Ewing filed suit against Amerisure. The federal district trial court entered summary judgment for Amerisure. Applying Texas law, the court held that all of the damages fell within the “contractual liability” exclusion precluding any duty to defend or indemnify.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    Cogently Written Opinion Finds Coverage for Loss Caused By Defective Concrete

    November 7, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    If ever in need of a concise, well-reasoned opinion on “occurrence,” “property damage” and applicability of the business risk exclusions, turn to Pamperin Rentals II, LLC v. R.G. Hendricks & Sons Construction, Inc., 2012 Wis Ct. App. LEXIS 698 (Wis. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2012).

    A contractor was hired to install concrete during construction of seven gas stations. Red-D-Mix provided the concrete. The contractor and Red-D-Mix were eventually sued by the gas stations, based upon allegations that the concrete was defectively manufactured and installed. The gas stations alleged that Red-D-Mix supplied concrete that was defective and resulted in damages, including the need to repair nearby asphalt.

    Red-D-Mix tendered to its insurers, who denied coverage. Suit was filed and the insurers moved for summary judgment. The trial court determined there were no allegations of either “property damage” or an “occurrence.” Therefore, there was no duty to defend or indemnify Red-D-Mix.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com


    New Safety Standards Issued by ASSE and ANSI

    March 28, 2012 — Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law North Carolina

    The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) have recently announced their approval of two new safety standards to enhance construction site safety.

    The two new standards, which are set to take effect during June 2012, are the ANSI/ASSE A10.1-2011 Pre-Project and Pre-Task Safety and Health Planning for Construction and Demolition Operations, and the ANSI/ASSE A10.26-2011 Emergency Procedures for Construction and Demolition Sites.

    The new A10.1-2011 standard was designed to assist construction owners, contractors, and designers by ensuring that safety and health planning were standard parts of their pre-construction planning. It is also intended to help owners of construction sites to establish a process for evaluating constructor candidates with regard to their safety and health performance planning.

    The A10.26 standard applies to emergency situations, including fires, collapses, and hazardous spills. The standard deals with emergency rescue, evacuation, and transportation of injured workers, and also plans for coordinating with emergency medical facilities ahead of potential disasters.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback of Ragsdale Liggett PLLC. Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com.